To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

March 22.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
87S
excuse me. geutlenH?n of tlie committee,
I thought 1 was addrenstng a Jury of
twelve men. Centlemen of the Convention, we should hesitate a longtime before we take this first ImiKirtant step
tit our Jurisprudence. It seems to me
thnt we are not tlie ones that have discovered this great secret that nine can
render a verdict, but thnt If It was of
great advantage, an It Is represented by
tliegeutk-men upon the other side, other
men framing their constitutions must
have discovered the secret In-fore thin.
I think If there Is uiiy one time when
thin Convention ought to follow tin?
precedent of all aires, this In tbe time.
It scents to me that we can not do
better than adopt tls? nyntcm thnt all
tin- states in the Union, following the
old common law. have adopted- Now.
gentlemen of the Jury [laughter], there
In a reason why twelve men are ln-tter
calculated to render n verdict tlmn k-sn
than twelve men. and I nm gointf to give
you that reason. We were asked to
give a reason yesterday for It. ami I am
going to give it to yon. Men's minds
are constituted differently. No one man
thinks as bin nelghln.r din*.. Take any
twelve men upon this floor, no one will
Bjve exactly the name reaaoa tor his
Judgment that another man will give.
Now. sir. the ex|n?rlenee of men. the
experience of courts, have taught us
that where there an- twelve men together, twelve different nilndn reasoning
ii|H>n the --'ini- proposition, they will
arrive at a better conclusion, ami a
more satisfactory conclusion, than nine
or lens than that, anil I believe that
that In the secret. We have twelve different views of the proportion that In
In-forelbe court and before tlie Jury and
the views of twelve men uulte In a con-
cciinun of one view upon tls? final verdict.
Tls- verdict then will express tls?
opinion of twelve men: Uh-twelve men
will have different reason- for tl*?lr
views; each man will have til- own
reason, ami It seemn to me that I bin Is
a thing that we should follow. I do
not believe that we should he the first
to take this Important step, and I am
opposed to It and I am going to stand
for the old common law Jury system
and vote that tbe Jury slmll tie twelve
and that nine can render n verdict; and
the reason thnt 1 am willing to vote
thin way Is because if we allow nine to
render * verdict nnd not make It unanimous, we remove the three- It in possible sometimes that In any Jury there
may Is? corrupt Influences brought to
ln?ar upon the Jury and that Influence
may infect one or two. or three men.
but It in very rarely that It will ever go
to a£h«t four men on the Jury. And
that. 1 In-lleve. l-wliy the verdict nhould
In? by nine anil not a niuiulmoun verdict, and ■ nm In favor, gentlemen, of
the projsMillion of Mr. Varlnn.
Mr. CHEER. Mr. Chairman, for Information of the gentlemen. I wish to
read from tbe ronntltutliin of Wyoming
to show that we would not In? the first
to entabllnh this precedent M Indicated
by the gentleman from Salt Lake. "Tlie
right of trinl by Jury shall remain In-
vlolnte In criminal case*, but a Jury In
civil case* lu all c.iurt*. or In criminal
rases In courts not of record, may consist of haw than twelve men. as may be
prescritn?d by law." So we would not
Is? the first to break the established
order.
Mr. PIERCE. Then I take that back.
Mr. WHLI-H. Mr. Chairman. I desire
also tocalt the gentleman's attention to
the fact that that section asreimrted by
the committee Is the Identical language
of the constitution of the state of
Washington, that provides for a Jury
of k-sn than twelve In courts of record,
ami for a verdict of nine or more Jurors
In criminal cases In any court of record.
Mr. THl'RMAN. Well. If I am not
mistaken, Mr. I'lialrmnn. thin In the
WOret mlntake I ever made In my life.
If I .nn mintaken In what I now nay. I
nhould In? In Provo mire. and. nlr,
[laughter) a mis- east of tlie bank cor-

March 22.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
87S
excuse me. geutlenH?n of tlie committee,
I thought 1 was addrenstng a Jury of
twelve men. Centlemen of the Convention, we should hesitate a longtime before we take this first ImiKirtant step
tit our Jurisprudence. It seems to me
thnt we are not tlie ones that have discovered this great secret that nine can
render a verdict, but thnt If It was of
great advantage, an It Is represented by
tliegeutk-men upon the other side, other
men framing their constitutions must
have discovered the secret In-fore thin.
I think If there Is uiiy one time when
thin Convention ought to follow tin?
precedent of all aires, this In tbe time.
It scents to me that we can not do
better than adopt tls? nyntcm thnt all
tin- states in the Union, following the
old common law. have adopted- Now.
gentlemen of the Jury [laughter], there
In a reason why twelve men are ln-tter
calculated to render n verdict tlmn k-sn
than twelve men. and I nm gointf to give
you that reason. We were asked to
give a reason yesterday for It. ami I am
going to give it to yon. Men's minds
are constituted differently. No one man
thinks as bin nelghln.r din*.. Take any
twelve men upon this floor, no one will
Bjve exactly the name reaaoa tor his
Judgment that another man will give.
Now. sir. the ex|n?rlenee of men. the
experience of courts, have taught us
that where there an- twelve men together, twelve different nilndn reasoning
ii|H>n the --'ini- proposition, they will
arrive at a better conclusion, ami a
more satisfactory conclusion, than nine
or lens than that, anil I believe that
that In the secret. We have twelve different views of the proportion that In
In-forelbe court and before tlie Jury and
the views of twelve men uulte In a con-
cciinun of one view upon tls? final verdict.
Tls- verdict then will express tls?
opinion of twelve men: Uh-twelve men
will have different reason- for tl*?lr
views; each man will have til- own
reason, ami It seemn to me that I bin Is
a thing that we should follow. I do
not believe that we should he the first
to take this Important step, and I am
opposed to It and I am going to stand
for the old common law Jury system
and vote that tbe Jury slmll tie twelve
and that nine can render n verdict; and
the reason thnt 1 am willing to vote
thin way Is because if we allow nine to
render * verdict nnd not make It unanimous, we remove the three- It in possible sometimes that In any Jury there
may Is? corrupt Influences brought to
ln?ar upon the Jury and that Influence
may infect one or two. or three men.
but It in very rarely that It will ever go
to a£h«t four men on the Jury. And
that. 1 In-lleve. l-wliy the verdict nhould
In? by nine anil not a niuiulmoun verdict, and ■ nm In favor, gentlemen, of
the projsMillion of Mr. Varlnn.
Mr. CHEER. Mr. Chairman, for Information of the gentlemen. I wish to
read from tbe ronntltutliin of Wyoming
to show that we would not In? the first
to entabllnh this precedent M Indicated
by the gentleman from Salt Lake. "Tlie
right of trinl by Jury shall remain In-
vlolnte In criminal case*, but a Jury In
civil case* lu all c.iurt*. or In criminal
rases In courts not of record, may consist of haw than twelve men. as may be
prescritn?d by law." So we would not
Is? the first to break the established
order.
Mr. PIERCE. Then I take that back.
Mr. WHLI-H. Mr. Chairman. I desire
also tocalt the gentleman's attention to
the fact that that section asreimrted by
the committee Is the Identical language
of the constitution of the state of
Washington, that provides for a Jury
of k-sn than twelve In courts of record,
ami for a verdict of nine or more Jurors
In criminal cases In any court of record.
Mr. THl'RMAN. Well. If I am not
mistaken, Mr. I'lialrmnn. thin In the
WOret mlntake I ever made In my life.
If I .nn mintaken In what I now nay. I
nhould In? In Provo mire. and. nlr,
[laughter) a mis- east of tlie bank cor-